HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

iH8DemLibz said:

I've always believed these bills are vindictively crafted so gun owners will be forced to live in fear.

They can't take our guns, but they can make owning our guns excruciatingly painful.

If this bill is signed into law, all gun owners will immediately become paranoia cases that will be afraid to open their mouths for any reason.

It will literally be 1984. Living under the watchful eye of Big Brother. We will be forced into being complacent, unemotional, sacks of meat.

Click to expand...

danimalw said:

Let's hope never, but the way the Nazis in Annapolis are trying to ram this through, I doubt Ho(gutless)gan would veto it if the full MGA sends it to him.

Click to expand...

ironpony said:

I believe he said he would sign it already.

Click to expand...

Allen65 said:

Yes, but he was referring to the bill as originally introduced, without the "interested parties" language added on in Dumais' committee.

Click to expand...

zoostation said:

There was a small thread on this that ended in February so I am starting this new one. This bill is awful. I mean seriously awful. This allows anyone to go down to District Court, hold up their right hand and swear you are a danger to them, to yourself, or to others, and have your guns seized. The bill allows "any interested person" to take out an order. And that means just what it says. Anyone who is interested in you can get your guns seized. Including stalkers.

Think about it. Estranged relatives, ex-partners and spouses, stalkers, embittered ex-girlfriends and boyfriends, the drunken neighbor you called 911 on when he was beating his wife, the guy you called 911 on and reported for DWI one day in traffic, the employee you fired for stealing, the co-worker you reported for sexual harassment, your druggie relative who you won't give money to, the Facebook troll who despises your online politics and lives in or near Maryland, even the crazy bag lady who hates you because she thinks your cat is stealing her soul when it stares at her from your window, anybody who doesn't like you can get your guns seized. All they have to do is accuse you of threatening them.

Some arguments we will hear for this bill:

1. "Oh they need a preponderance of evidence." Yes, and since the respondent has no right to be notified of or heard during the initial application, the preponderance of evidence will be whatever the accuser says it is.

2. "It has to be sworn under penalty of perjury." Means nothing. As if people care or are intimidated by that. Especially crazy people or veterans of the criminal or civil justice system. It's been shown they don't. And perjury prosecutions won't happen. First off, most of the applications will simply be one person's word against another, and no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone lied.

And ask people who say that to name you one, one single prosecution for perjury ever conducted anywhere in this state on any application for an ex-parte in the three decades that we've had them. I'll bet they can't. Even though ex-parte applications are lied on very frequently and used simply as tools in divorce and child support cases. I was a cop for 25 years and I never saw a prosecutor ever even consider it or mention it, even when the lies were bold and obvious. And everyone in the legal system knows it. Heck, you even have attorneys telling their divorce clients to think of "something" they can file an ex-parte on as a bargaining chip.

3. "You can sue people who lie about you and take out one of these." More ********. The law specifically grants civil immunity for those who file "in good faith." And when it's one person's word against another, how will you prove it wasn't applied for in good faith.

4. "It's only six days and you can have the guns back if the court doesn't find cause." ********. The law says you "may" have them back after six days. It puts no time constraint requiring police to give them back that fast. It cannot be done that fast. I know. I handled the returns for a police department. It takes a couple of months on average. And if a person has things like another person with a similar name and DOB with a murky criminal history, it can be a lot longer. A lot of criminal histories, especially in the city, are horribly incomplete and sometimes old dispositions can't even be resolved after lengthy hand searches.

This is a bad, bad bill and will require all MD gun owners to walk on eggshells, and not make anyone upset with them for any reason, no matter how justified and legal. Don't report anyone who sexually harasses you at work, don't call the police on anyone even if you have a really important reason, don't make your teenage daughter's stalker mad by taking out a peace order against him. Just hide in the shadows. This bill is a domestic violence criminal's dream.

The bill is in the Senate, First Reading. It needs to be stopped there. Write and call your senators. The spineless Republicans in the House caved on it almost to a man. And our equally vacillating Governor has indicated he will sign it. At a minimum, if it cannot be stopped the "any interested person" clause needs to be taken out and the bill made only to apply to medical practitioners and law enforcement as it was initially intended.



http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/bills/hb/hb1302t.pdf

Click to expand...

dblas said:

Copying for use on my FB page.

Click to expand...

iH8DemLibz said:

Politicians are snakes and will use second amendment supporters until we're no longer useful.

We've reached that point.

I'm genuinely shocked at how many people are genuinely shocked.

Click to expand...

zoostation said:

Just a note, I have been following activity here and we are getting a lot of outside visits. I have little doubt the Munchie Moms and their ilk are keeping a craggy old eye on the thread. Just something to keep in mind. I'm sure somewhere there are some chubby little fingers banging away furiously on a cat-hair covered keyboard trying to come up with opposing points (aka lies) to counter our arguments.

Click to expand...

Racer Doug14 said:

She has gotten an email and call from me. I will not vote for her. Paper Tiger.

Click to expand...

Jim12 said:

Today's REPULICANS are even more subtle and cunning than the Nazis were. Or than Mao, Castro, or Maduro for that matter.

The REPUBLICANS disarmingly say, "I support the Second Amendment, but...", then prove that they don't by proposing nonsensical and unreasonable "common sense gun laws..." and "reasonable restrictions..." so as to not cause undue alarm. Mike Miller even touts, "I have more guns than you do" (which could be taken in more ways than one).

As soon as a tragedy like Parkland strikes, they cobble together over-broad, knee-jerk reactions and at the same time pull out all their pre-prepared, draconian restrictions that are waiting and at the ready to exploit people's fears, emotions, and vulnerabilities.

Click to expand...

Not_an_outlaw said:

Rack and Deep Lurker could certainly file a complaint under this law against Officer Pope. He abused his power while having a firearm. Maybe he should be the test case. Certainly would be with good faith and not perjury. Which brings up another point. How does this law apply to Law Enforcement. I can see where someone was arrested, wrongfully or not, but still be acting in good faith depending on the standard. (A person in his shoes versus a person generally) How about the skateboard kid in the Inner Harbor a couple of years ago. Or the state policeman drawing a gun on a motorcyclist wearing a go-pro. Or any of the many abusive videos of law enforcement.

Click to expand...

Rack&Roll said:

Please folks, screengrab these signs and post them to your Facebook pages.

Click to expand...